I'll respond ad loc with fallacies noted:
Earlier you didn't include this as an/the affected group, why?
Who are the people without ID? Generally, they're black.
Absurd comparison, but now you finally admit who you claim will be disenfranchised, thereby making an innocuous issue of voter integrity one of racism. This is the go-to line for anyone who wants to squelch debate. Nicely done. Do you have any proof of this motivation (to disenfranchise black would-be-voters)?
And I don't care how many people are for the passage of this law. Jim Crow laws were passed.
Can you fail to be who your photo ID says you are? No Can you fail a literacy test? Yes Fallacy: false analogy The requirements of photo ID are the same for ALL voters. I don't share your thinking that some demographics, especially black Americans need special help to get an ID... This is insulting to black Americans.
Requiring people to register and identify themselves to vote isn't that far from literacy tests to vote in the old days.
Oh my - it would be impossible! If government should be involved in one thing it should ensure the integrity of elections. That an national defense and a couple other things... I do share your vision of smaller government at least.
Do you know the pain in the ass it will require to get the government to pay for the identification? It's going to require pay stubs, welfare checks, tax receipts, that sort of thing.
(fallacy: appeal to emotion) Here you go again. How many car-less 80 year old women in the ghetto do you suppose there are. And how many of them can't get a ride from a friend or family member.... oh my goodness, how do they get to the doctor?
On top of that, you have to get the ID, which means you need time off work or you need to find transportation to the DMV. Not a big deal for a middle class white dude like me but for a car-less 80 year old woman in the ghetto
I support cleaning up the voting rosters so that felons and other illegal would-be-voters are not registered. Once this is done, a felon may still try to use someone elses name and register in that persons name, so long as that person's name is on the registration role. A photo ID would prevent this from happening.
You bring up felons voting. I bring up how ID laws don't prevent that.
This is really sad. As with most of your statements, you are long on the claims and short on the evidence. They are a joke? Why? Because you say so? You make it hard to present proof to refute your claims if all the proof is thrown out because you don't like the source. (Fallacy: Red herring -- it's a distraction, Fallacy: Poisoning the Well -- unfairly indicting all sources and views of Fox) Good for me, there are plenty of other sources... I'll just have to get them through the Brock clearinghouse of acceptable news sources. Someone who resorts to this kind of debate tactic is unworthy of further debate. I thought you made up rules against ad hominum (poisoning the well is a form of ad hominum, but I'm sure you knew that)
You keep deflecting this argument and actually posted a link to Fox-freakin-News, the biggest joke of a news agency in a country of partisan news channels.
Another take from a different source. Let me know if this is admissible or not judge: http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/...-or-Republican
That's why I'm asking you. You know a lot.
Come on. I expect better than that. Instead of just supposing that voter fraud exists because someone told you it did, go find actual studies that examine the situation.
Seriously, you have no idea how or why I hold this position other than what I've written. You think insulting your opponent has an effect on the argument? [fallacy: ad hominum]
Condescending ad hominum. As has now been made clear three times, 70% of the country agrees with me. If I were republican I'd sure pat you on the head for the compliment that you think 70% of the country is GOP, but it's not -- though a conservative philosophy is the majority in the country.
And when you come up blank, ask yourself one question: Why are Republicans doing this?
I guarantee you're not going to like the answer if you're anything more the a hard-line member of the GOP who eats up every line of BS they feed you.
Following you logic, you must not have any black friends. How sad for you. This says more about the white guilt drizzled throughout this most current treatise on racial demagoguery.
And no, I cannot name three adults who do not had identification. And that's my entire point.
Let me leave you with a philosophical maxim: An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
With your permission, I'd like to use this post in my logic classes. It's, well, an interesting example. In the future I'd advise you that it's okay to be impassioned and hold strong opinions, but it's not okay to only have strong opinions; and don't try to come across as some sage who can note all the ills of society/politics and then abuse your opponent with ad hominum attacks. If it were a couple times only or in jest or just a good ribbing that would be one thing, but you sir should be banned if you were not a mod yourself. Grow up!